UV Suppliment Lighting

[oldbeancounter]

Like every other led made it is equivalent

the 9 watt led in my bathroom is equivalent to 60 watts

I am well aware of that marketing ploy and really it is a total lie and can make buying online difficult.
Same goes for felt-fabric pots, 5 gallon isn't 5 gallons, maybe like 4 gallon if, it really is a pain.

 

[mr. childs]

I am well aware of that marketing ploy and really it is a total lie and can buying online difficult.
Same goes for felt-fabric pots, 5 gallon isn't 5 gallons, maybe like 4 gallon if, it really is a pain.

never heard that one, i know the airpots are a little smaller than advertised though

 

[ttystikk]

I've been looking at the UV index pretty much all day long lol and I'm actually starting to morph into possibly using 280nm instead of 305nm - 325nm for my UVB WVs. @SSGrower

Example:
250mW/m2 of only 280nm LED.

280nm erythemal weight % = 100%; 1
View attachment 4344319
The < 295nm range has an erythemal weight of 100%, so the area under the SPD curve below 295nm is multipled by 100%, or 1 to subsequently calculate the portion of the UV index coming from emissions 295nm and below.

If there are no other emissions between 280nm - 400nm besides the sole 250mW/m2 of 280nm supplied by the 280nm LED, then the area under the 280nm SPD curve is the one and only portion to create the entire UV index figure from.

(When you multiply anything by 1 you get what you started with, so the area of the 'effective spectrum' curve from 295nm and below is the exact same as the area of the 'SPD curve' when/if it's below 295nm)

(250mW/m2 of 280nm) × (100%)
=
The weighted portion of the UV index from 295nm and below
=
250mW/m2

There are no other emissions (lets assume) to multiply anything by, so emissions 281nm+ = (0mW/m2) × (Y%), and anything multiplied by 0 is 0, so 0mW/m2 + 250mW/m2 = 250mW/m2, which is the same thing as the value of the integration of the effective spectrum curve from 280nm - 400nm (area under). A 25mW/m2 standard is then used to divide the weighted radiation figure to arrive at a final UV index figure.

(250mW/m2) ÷ (25mW/m2)
=
10.0 UV index


What I'm thinking..

1. Get UV index meter
2. Tune UV index to "Y" value using 305nm - 325nm WVs
3. Tune UV index to "Y" value using 280nm WVs
4. Tune UV index to "Y" value using 50/50 (280nm)/(305nm - 325nm) WVs

5. Note wattage consumption in 2, 3, & 4
6. Note differences to plants in 2, 3, & 4

Idk how translatable UV index will be when applied to a single WV, I'm guessing less power nessecary, but idk and very curious.

No. 285nm is UVC and doesn't add to resin production. It's also the worst for causing cancer and macular degeneration if you're existed to it.

You want 315nm UVB and possibly UVA.

 

[ChiefRunningPhist]

No. 285nm is UVC and doesn't add to resin production. It's also the worst for causing cancer and macular degeneration if you're existed to it.

You want 315nm UVB and possibly UVA.

UVR8...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVR8

285nm is UVB, 280nm is the smallest UVB WV.


Cancer is DNA thats mutated and continues to reproduce cells in a mutated way. The reason we care about UV in relation to cancer is due to the increased absorption rate of EMR in DNA (amoung other molecules) at short WV's. The peak absorption WV of DNA is not 280nm, but actually closer to 260nm. They use 260nm in nucleic acid quantitation, a technique to measure and quantify DNA & RNA concentrations.


The atmosphere absorbs everything ~295nm and down, so you'd never actually be exposed to 280nm unless artificially.

It's peculiar to me. Someone told you to be wary of a WV that doesn't exist naturally, yet they didn't give you the most dangerous unnaturally occurring WV. It is true that DNA is more readily absorbed at 280nm than 315nm or any other WV greater than 280nm, but like it's been pointed out, 280nm doesn't compromise any part of the natural solar UVR, nor is it the worst unnatural UVR WV.

Seems kind of like that telephone game where everyone sits in a circle and 1 person starts the story telling and then whispers to the next guy and then by the time the story gets all the way back around its been told and retold so many times that it's basically the same story, but the details are off lol that's what it seems like to me, though despite the errors and/or controversial claims, I think I still get the jyst of your post (safety), thanks, it's important to me too.

 

[ttystikk]

UVR8...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVR8

285nm is UVB, 280nm is the smallest UVB WV.
View attachment 4344629

Cancer is DNA thats mutated and continues to reproduce cells in a mutated way. The reason we care about UV in relation to cancer is due to the increased absorption rate of EMR in DNA (amoung other molecules) at short WV's. The peak absorption WV of DNA is not 280nm, but actually closer to 260nm. They use 260nm in nucleic acid quantitation, a technique to measure and quantify DNA & RNA concentrations.
View attachment 4344599

The atmosphere absorbs everything ~295nm and down, so you'd never actually be exposed to 280nm unless artificially.
View attachment 4344617
It's peculiar to me. Someone told you to be wary of a WV that doesn't exist naturally, yet they didn't give you the most dangerous unnaturally occurring WV. It is true that DNA is more readily absorbed at 280nm than 315nm or any other WV greater than 280nm, but like it's been pointed out, 280nm doesn't compromise any part of the natural solar UVR, nor is it the worst unnatural UVR WV.

Seems kind of like that telephone game where everyone sits in a circle and 1 person starts the story telling and then whispers to the next guy and then by the time the story gets all the way back around its been told and retold so many times that it's basically the same story, but the details are off lol that's what it seems like to me, though despite the errors and/or controversial claims, I think I still get the jyst of your post (safety), thanks, it's important to me too.

I'm referring to some studies I've read back in the day that concluded 315nm was optimal for resin production. Not sure where you got the rest of that.

Living here in sunny, high altitude Colorado, we get more than our fair share of cases of skin cancer and macular degeneration. Playing with artificial UV sources in our gardens can be dangerous to long term health and I'm trying to raise awareness of that fact.

 

[ChiefRunningPhist]

I'm referring to some studies I've read back in the day that concluded 315nm was optimal for resin production. Not sure where you got the rest of that.

Living here in sunny, high altitude Colorado, we get more than our fair share of cases of skin cancer and macular degeneration. Playing with artificial UV sources in our gardens can be dangerous to long term health and I'm trying to raise awareness of that fact.

If you want citations just quote the portion and I'll throw them up, I forget to add them sometimes.

I was pretty leary of 280nm because I saw that in high UV index days that there was only a small amount of 295nm (0.6mW/m2 of 295nm in a 10.6 UVI example). So 280nm must be lots worse! But as I was eating at Subway I noticed the UVC HO fluoro lights are placed on the walls at eye level shining on anyone that walks by or is waiting at the condiment table to customize their orders. I also remebered the UVC fluoros shining in the prep area or on the line when I worked as a cook.

Like @SSGrower said, health risk is calculated by intensity × time of exposure (or something like that lol jump in if I'm butchering this!). So it makes me feel a little bit better to know that multimillion dollar companies use UVC (which is worse than 280nm) around customers and employees and seem to be ok doing it. That's not to say that UV shouldn't be respected. Working with UVB is carcinogenic and needs to be accompanied with a healthy respect of the danger.

 

[SSGrower]

So close @ChiefRunningPhist
Exposure risk is dose and time dependent.

Health risk takes into account the individual, their history, preexisting conditions, sensitivities and suceptibilities.

@ttystikk is correct for precautioning everyone. Safety interlocks are standard equipment on paint booths that utilize uv curing. They do not rely on clothing or ppe (sunscreen, glasses).

 

[oldbeancounter]

One can use them but they need a huge distance of at least 24-30" and even then you can only use them for 1-2h per day splitted in 4x 10-30min. Plants need UVA too when you treat them with UVB and they need much more UVA than B to not getting cell damage. They have adapted to natural UV levels which can be between 1:4 to 1:20 depending where you care.
1: 4 is outback level or in 2000m height, 20:1 you maybe get in the scottish highlands.

PureUV bulbs have an exact opposite ratio and have 3 times more UVB like A(75:25%) so far from being natural.
I myself know this unfortunately since a few weeks as I have talked with a professional gardener who regularily use UVB/A for different sorts of kitchen herbs like rosemary. They also use T5's and some kind of quarz burner but I've not seen them. He only told me that they are more complicated and need additional UVC filters cause they create UV from A-C.

When you put a rosemary under a reptile bulb it takes around two weeks and you can see the difference with the naked eyes. The leaves get much darker, new leaves also stay a little smaller and the surface gets really shiny because of the higher amounts of oils. They also start to feel sticky and the smell is unbelievable. Rosemary, thyme, basil, and so forth produce all the essential oils and they all profit from UV treatments.
He says, he also tested it with different tomatoes and the lab tests have shown that even the nutrient content has increased. Exspecially vitamins and so. They have found different vitamin/mineral profiles compared to no UV light.
He says, this is one of the reasons why the nutrient content in vegetables has partially gone back by 50% and more. Too many greenhouses and in all of them the UV light is eliminated by glass or plastic material. They develop already UV-permeable hollow panels that let UVA and B light pass through.
Sometimes they only use UVA to bring out more colors and for other species the use both, UVA and B.
His kitchen herbs are only for the locale gastronomy, you can not buy them anywhere else.
He recommended me higher output T5 reptile bulbs because they mimic the sunlight and last at least 1500h(still 80% or the initial output). The spectrum goes "only" down to 295nm which cause less stress but they need more time compared to stronger bulbs to cause the same effect.

If you want more UVB for short treatments get the Solacure bulbs. They are 3 times stronger like 12-14% reptile bulbs but the still have a natural ratio with 5 times more UVA like B. Their spectrum goes down to 280nm which means a smaller dose is neccessary to get the same effect. Nevertheless its the old T12 standard its currently the most efficient UVB bulb "suitable" for growing.

That's the Solacure spectrum.. You see, only a little is exactly 285nm and the amount 280-320nm is at least 4 times less as the area from 320-400nm. Optimal would be 285 and 365nm and a ratio around 1:5..
View attachment 4327046

And thats the Arcadia 12% spectrum compared to natural levels. Remember, the natrual level is measured somewhere in GB.. The higher you go or the closer you come to the equator the more shifts the green line to the left. At the highest levels the natural curve starts just below 280nm because UVC is still filtered by the atmosphere even in 5000m above zero.
@Randomblame
I wonder if I might ask some advice on these bulbs as I missed something.

I later realized I purchased these bulbs below.
https://www.solacure.com/superb.html

vers

the flower power below in link
https://www.solacure.com/flowerpower.html

Will I get the same responses and what is different as I think at the time I liked the even plateau and long exposure times I did not realize that I selected a different bulb than the flowerpower.
It does say generation 5 vers 4 for the flower power not sure what to think?
It is the 285nm being lower that may affect things I thought as I can get another couple bulbs in flower power as my lights are double 32 watt be running em at 25 watts 4 bulbs so 100 watts.
I have noticed I can leave the other bulb on for 6 hours no problem now and leaves on top are not affected just oldest leaves from beginning still bear some scars but still alive with slight tan.
Perhaps adding flower power too during later flower will be good?

 

[ttystikk]

I've noticed that several people are referencing a desirable ratio between UVA and UVB. I looked back but I can't seem to find what that ratio is. A little help?

 

[Randomblame]

The superb's are strong enough and they use exactly the same phosphors so you still get the flowerpower spectrum. That they have less intensity is actually a good thing because the flowerpower bulbs are actually already too strong to mimic natural conditions with a shorter distance. In nature plants get most of the UVB dose in the ~4-5 hours around noon.
If you have you LED's at 16-20" you need to dimm the flowerpower bulbs down to not cause damage and with the Agromax bulbs its even more worse.
Solacure is developing T5's already with even less UV intensity but some visible light like reptile bulbs and they do this probably to create something that can be used with less distance. They mix the 285nm flowerpower phosphor with some "normal" 7000°k phosphor so users still profit from the correct UVB wavelength. Compared to reptile bulbs which start around 295nm you would still safe a lot of time.

So there is nothing wrong with the superb's! They work in the same way but can run already with less distance. Your 6h test proves that already. I'm pretty sure you'll see a strong effect already with 2-4h per day. Not all strains will have such a high UVB resistance and can handle 6h. But you have you variac dimmer and can set as much hours and intensity you want. Its for sure less stressful to work with less intensity but more time.

The chief has figured out how UV index meters work and they can indeed be used to measure UVB intensity because they weight the shorter wavelength the strongest. If you look at the test results of the Arcadia bulbs below you will see that around 150μW/cm² is an UVI of ~4,3 no matter which reflector you use. Your superb's have an even lower start wavelength and will have a higher UVI at 150μW/cm² like a reptile bulb. This means each bulb has its own μW/cm² to UVI ratio. One would need both an UVB and an UVI meter to figure out the μW/UVI converting factor but if you have it its the same like with the lux to μMol converting factor. Just measure UVI and convert it to μW, muliply it by hours of usage and then by 0,036 and you have the daily dose in kj/m² per day.

I've ordered the little 25$ smartphone dongle to test it. I've a few of the 12% Arcadia bulbs they have tested and can compare the readings with the test results. I've two 120h old bulbs and the readings should be pretty close to those in the test cuz they have used exactly the same 12% bulbs but 100h old.

 

[Randomblame]

I've noticed that several people are referencing a desirable ratio between UVA and UVB. I looked back but I can't seem to find what that ratio is. A little help?

At least 2 times more UVA better 4-5 times as much. In nature the difference is even higher but I don't believe its neccessary to use 10x more. Reptile bulbs and Solacures have already a good ratio. Only the Agromax bulbs have 3 times more UVB than A(75:25%) and are so much damaging.

 

[Randomblame]

No. 285nm is UVC and doesn't add to resin production. It's also the worst for causing cancer and macular degeneration if you're existed to it.

You want 315nm UVB and possibly UVA.

Nope! 315nm is not close enough to 285nm (where the UVR8 receptor response is the best) to cause an effect because you already need 10x more 295nm like 285nm to get the same effect.
True is there is no 285nm light in terrestrial UVB radiation only 295nm and above and even if it takes longer it has the same thc increasing effect. If you have a light source that directly hits 285nm you would need 10x less time like in nature and get the same effect probably with only one hour with natural intensity.

That's the UVR8 receptor response curve.. As you can see 315nm would have almost no effect. UVB is 280-315nm and in some countries its 275-320nm or 280-320nm. 295nm like from reptile bulbs have already a good effect cuz they are pretty close and at least around half as useful. It needs more time but at least it works!

 

[oldbeancounter]

The superb's are strong enough and they use exactly the same phosphors so you still get the flowerpower spectrum. That they have less intensity is actually a good thing because the flowerpower bulbs are actually already too strong to mimic natural conditions with a shorter distance. In nature plants get most of the UVB dose in the ~4-5 hours around noon.
If you have you LED's at 16-20" you need to dimm the flowerpower bulbs down to not cause damage and with the Agromax bulbs its even more worse.
Solacure is developing T5's already with even less UV intensity but some visible light like reptile bulbs and they do this probably to create something that can be used with less distance. They mix the 285nm flowerpower phosphor with some "normal" 7000°k phosphor so users still profit from the correct UVB wavelength. Compared to reptile bulbs which start around 295nm you would still safe a lot of time.

So there is nothing wrong with the superb's! They work in the same way but can run already with less distance. Your 6h test proves that already. I'm pretty sure you'll see a strong effect already with 2-4h per day. Not all strains will have such a high UVB resistance and can handle 6h. But you have you variac dimmer and can set as much hours and intensity you want. Its for sure less stressful to work with less intensity but more time.

The chief has figured out how UV index meters work and they can indeed be used to measure UVB intensity because they weight the shorter wavelength the strongest. If you look at the test results of the Arcadia bulbs below you will see that around 150μW/cm² is an UVI of ~4,3 no matter which reflector you use. Your superb's have an even lower start wavelength and will have a higher UVI at 150μW/cm² like a reptile bulb. This means each bulb has its own μW/cm² to UVI ratio. One would need both an UVB and an UVI meter to figure out the μW/UVI converting factor but if you have it its the same like with the lux to μMol converting factor. Just measure UVI and convert it to μW, muliply it by hours of usage and then by 0,036 and you have the daily dose in kj/m² per day.

I've ordered the little 25$ smartphone dongle to test it. I've a few of the 12% Arcadia bulbs they have tested and can compare the readings with the test results. I've two 120h old bulbs and the readings should be pretty close to those in the test cuz they have used exactly the same 12% bulbs but 100h old.

@Randomblame
Fantastic!
I am still part shopping so meter(s) gotta wait.
I am trying to put everything on dimmers so won't matter as long as I have enough of various spectrums which I am getting close to completing.
I would really be interested in how that smartphone dongle works for you as I may buy one as well once I assemble everything and ready to use.
Thanks for info,
it is very helpful!

 

[Randomblame]

@Randomblame
Fantastic!
I am still part shopping so meter(s) gotta wait.
I am trying to put everything on dimmers so won't matter as long as I have enough of various spectrums which I am getting close to completing.
I would really be interested in how that smartphone dongle works for you as I may buy one as well once I assemble everything and ready to use.
Thanks for info,
it is very helpful!

Yeah, I'll for sure make some testings and show how it works. For 25 bucks its really cheap.
Solarmeter is a well known brand for UVA, B and UVI measuring devices and they are pretty good but their meters cost at least ~200 bucks and a combo meter measuring both UVA and B cost even more.
I can also figure out a lux to UVB factor for those having exact the same 12% Arcadia bulb and a lux meter.

 

[ChiefRunningPhist]

last time i checked we rate lamps with PPF/J, not PPF/"J-equivalent"

Well that's not really an accurate metric either. μmol/J tells you just as much as lumens/watt for what a plant wants.

 

[ChiefRunningPhist]

Like every other led made it is equivalent

the 9 watt led in my bathroom is equivalent to 60 watts

A pic of my new setup, perhaps it answers your question?
.
View attachment 4343508

They may not be as effecient as the newest top of the line, but I like your spread and pattern, nice diverse SPD. I bet they grow the plants pretty well.

 

[ttystikk]

Nope! 315nm is not close enough to 285nm (where the UVR8 receptor response is the best) to cause an effect because you already need 10x more 295nm like 285nm to get the same effect.
True is there is no 285nm light in terrestrial UVB radiation only 295nm and above and even if it takes longer it has the same thc increasing effect. If you have a light source that directly hits 285nm you would need 10x less time like in nature and get the same effect probably with only one hour with natural intensity.

That's the UVR8 receptor response curve.. As you can see 315nm would have almost no effect. UVB is 280-315nm and in some countries its 275-320nm or 280-320nm. 295nm like from reptile bulbs have already a good effect cuz they are pretty close and at least around half as useful. It needs more time but at least it works!

View attachment 4346274

The study I read is easily 10-15 years old and I can't find it anymore. The question is answered easily enough; let the plants tell us!

It's certainly not worth quibbling over. I'm looking forward to the chance to play with it, myself.

 

[Randomblame]

Yeah, I would never start quibbling over because someone has another opinion. I just want to make sure you try it with bulbs that really works.

This sites are relatively new and the wiki has a few additional links..

https://www.agricultra.com/secondarymetabolite

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVR8

In short, the closer the wavelength to 285nm the less time is needed to cause an effect. With 295nm, which is the lowest natural wavelength on earth it already takes 5-10 times longer. To me it means when we have a light source emitting 285nm light we only need 0,5-1h instead ~5h at noon like in nature. 5h with 285nm and natural intensity would for sure cause a damage..

I like Solacures superb's because they are not as strong as the flowerpower bulbs but they still have UVB down to 285nm. I also like the T5 which they have in the pipeline. These bulbs will have even less UVB intensity because they mix UV with visible light(like reptile bulbs) but they still have some 285nm UVB light.
They need more time compared to the flowerpower or superb's but they're less stressful and can not harm the plants as quick as the other two bulbs do and they can be used with less distance. Pretty sure 2h with 12-16" would have almost the same effect like 2h with the flowerpower bulbs at 24-27".

IMO it depends on the usually used distance you use in you groom.
With ~20-24" I would try the superb's, with +24" distance I would try the flowerpower bulbs and with only 12-16" I would recommend to use either reptile bulbs or wait for the new Solacure T5's.
I will order the T5's as soon as they're available..

 

[ANC]

The same as with the far reds etc.. I have no idea how much UV or FR to add. like how many watts of each does one need per unit of area?

 

[Randomblame]

The same as with the far reds etc.. I have no idea how much UV or FR to add. like how many watts of each does one need per unit of area?

Depends on the used bulbs...
A 2ft reptile bulb(like the 24w, T5 Arcadia d3) is good for a 2x 2' area, a 4ft bulb (54w) covers at least a 4x 2ft area. Arcadia has also 3ft bulbs which are good for 6sft.
The Solacure flowerpower bulbs are up to 10x stronger and need more distance thus they cover a wider area. A 4ft bulb or 2 2footers are probably already enough to cover a 4x 4' area.

For far-red there are two ways one can use them..
End of day treatments or so-called flower initiation needs only a few watts per squaremeter; 5-10w for 5-10 mins right after lights off is enough. You can also calculate the right amount of time because it need only 2000-4000μMol. A far-red light producing 25μMol/m²/s would need only 80 seconds for 2000μMol or 160seconds for 4000.
Lets say you have 5w far-red and the efficiency is ~45%; that would be 2,25PAR/w. Far-red has a QER of ~6 so you would have 13,5μMol/s PPF. To get an amount of 4000μMol it would need 296sec. or ~5 minutes.

To supplement far-red I would either recommend to use CRI90+ because it has around twice as much far-red and has proven to work pretty good or I would add deep- and far-red to CRI80. In this case it needs a few calculations.
To make it short it needs around 20-25w deep- and another 5w far-red per squaremeter to supplement ~300w CRI80. The spectrum would shift near to CRI90 and you have doubled the amount of far-red.

The easiest way is to use 2 separate drivers.
One 12x 3w driver( e3ay, 600mA) could drive 16 deep-reds(~33,5v) at 600mA and would deliver around 20w net and a 5x 1w driver(e3ay, 300mA) could be used to power 8 far-red diodes at 4,5w. This way you can distribute the far-red evenly. It would also work with 4 diodes and a 600mA driver; in this case search e3ay for a siutable 2-3x 3w driver.

This way you could use the far-red diodes for both EoD treatments and to add far-red over the day. If you have the far-reds on the same driver you would need another 5w far-red light for EoD treatments.
If efficiency matters take Cree XP-E2 or the new XP-G3 in deep-red(the latter should be available end of this month, cutter) and XP-E2 in far-red. If you just want to improve the spectrum you could use cheaper diodes like Epistar or Epiled.
Prolight Opto is a good compromise. You can find them on alibaba and they are not far behind Cree or Osram when you find top bins but they cost only half that much. Digikey is unfortunately not cheap with 3w diodes and you pay maybe 3-4$US per diode. LED-tech.de has Osram Oslon and Oslon Square for 2,26€(without german VAT) but you have probably to pay additional import taxes in the worst case.

Here with us its cheaper now to import LED's because they are energy saving and the tax has been reduced or is dropped completely because of that. I have imported 4 of Prawns HL boards from australia, no tax to pay! And in a few days I get an Amare SolarBar-8 which I've won(1st place party cup contest) and I also get it without having to pay additional import taxes. I have already spoken with the logistic center of the parcel company and because its not used commercially I've to pay nothing. And the SB-8 is a huge 880w light designed to cover up to 5x 5‘.
Make sure to say that they are not for commercial use! It should make a difference also in SA...